MANAGEMENT, HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD versus GHANSHYAM SHARMA

MANAGEMENT, HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD versus GHANSHYAM SHARMA

Given the respondent was a casual worker with only 240 days of service and no evidence of gainful employment after termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is inappropriate; the proper remedy is lump sum compensation under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Parties
Appellant: Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.; Respondent: Ghanshyam Sharma
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Termination of Casual Worker, Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement, Section 11 a of Industrial Disputes Act
Labour Law Termination of Casual Worker Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement Section 11 a of Industrial Disputes Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Management, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd.

Appellant

Ghanshyam Sharma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reinstatement of a casual worker terminated after 240 days is appropriate or if lump sum compensation should be awarded instead

Ratio Decidendi

Given the respondent was a casual worker with only 240 days of service and no evidence of gainful employment after termination, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is inappropriate; the proper remedy is lump sum compensation under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Court Disposition

appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Award and impugned order modified: Appellant to pay Rs. 50,000/- in lump sum to respondent as compensation in lieu of reinstatement
  • Amount must be paid within three months from date of order